Guenon, Evola... atheists?!?!

>Guenon and Evola believe in the complete annihilation of the Self after death. It's basically esoteric atheism. I'm not saying that there isn't value in their work, but their mode of thought kind of defeats it's own purpose in that it's approach to death is satisfactory for most that are interested in spirituality
wtf, you homosexuals told me that these guys were trad n shieeet. now I'm not reading Ride the Tiger or Reign of Quantity. it was all just a fancy LARP

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Thus, as far as the destiny of the soul after death is concerned, there are two opposite paths. The first is the “path of the gods,” also known as the “solar path” or Zeus’s path, which leads to the bright dwelling of the immortals. This dwelling was variously represented as a height, heaven, or an island, from the Nordic Valhalla and Asgard to the Aztec-Inca “House of the Sun” that was reserved for kings, heroes, and nobles.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      What's the other path?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >The other path is that trodden by those who do not survive in a real way, and who slowly yet inexorably dissolve back into their original stocks, into the "totems" that unlike single individuals, never die; this is the life of Hades, of the "infernals," of Niflheim, of the chthonic deities.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          It cites like this that you realize how much was an "I'm a superior aristocrat" LARP. The whole thing is built on nothing more than an undeserved sense of elitism.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >wtf, you homosexuals told me that these guys were trad n shieeet. now I'm not reading Ride the Tiger or Reign of Quantity. it was all just a fancy LARP
    No they did not because Hinduism teaches that the Atman (Self) is immortal and indestructible and that thus you can never die or be harmed but that you just cycle between different bodies as insentient vehicles you inhabit until liberation. The guy going around spamming they teach annihilation is just some mentally-ill seething Christian who posts that nonsense in every thread; he thinks that anything that doesn't include the body lasting forever is annihilation; he is basically a 'spiritual materialist' who is overly sentimentally attached to his body and pleasures

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      No self Buddhism subsumes Advaita.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >No self Buddhism subsumes Advaita.
        how so?

        Advaita Self is just the Buddhist no self. Time to accept reality.

        That's incorrect; since the Advaita Self is unchanging awareness that is unconditioned and free from delusion and suffering where most of Buddhism denies that we have an unchanging awareness, deny that awareness is a self, they deny that awareness is free from suffering etc. So you are just contradicting yourself by asserting two things are the same when according to the involved parties they have mutually-exclusive attributes

        So you're just saying that you prefer annihilationism. But why are you so scared of calling it that?

        I am not scared of anything, having my own immortal awareness be present blissfully forever is not an annihilation and no amount of cope can show otherwise

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          what happens to your immortal, unchanging awareness when you sleep

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      So you're just saying that you prefer annihilationism. But why are you so scared of calling it that?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It's literally annihilationism though because Shankara just inserted Buddhism into Hinduism to prevent the mass exodus of Hindus to Buddhism. Shankara made incontrovertible concessions to Buddhism but essentially coped by using a fluffed up language (the Absolute, Being, Consciousness, Bliss etc) that is actually inconsistent with his premises and aims but that is the fundamental inconsistency of Advaita. It's just people being Buddhist while throwing hissy fits if you call them what they are.

      The Advaita seethes at being called a Buddhist in the same way trannies don't like being called the wrong pronoun. It doesn't change the fact of things, but it's very important to the person who holds that belief because worldview is fragile.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        How is it annihilationism? That guy literally said the self continues to exist in immaterial form. Why don't you try to engage with that point?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Because everything that consistutes you and your understanding even of Advaita is annihilated. Saying that this is somehow a plus, when it's obvious so much is being lost, is moronic. If you like that, then fine, but just admit and be honest about what you're doing. You like annihilationism.

          >No self Buddhism subsumes Advaita.
          how so?
          [...]
          That's incorrect; since the Advaita Self is unchanging awareness that is unconditioned and free from delusion and suffering where most of Buddhism denies that we have an unchanging awareness, deny that awareness is a self, they deny that awareness is free from suffering etc. So you are just contradicting yourself by asserting two things are the same when according to the involved parties they have mutually-exclusive attributes
          [...]
          I am not scared of anything, having my own immortal awareness be present blissfully forever is not an annihilation and no amount of cope can show otherwise

          >That's incorrect; since the Advaita Self is unchanging awareness that is unconditioned and free from delusion and suffering where most of Buddhism denies that we have an unchanging awareness, deny that awareness is a self, they deny that awareness is free from suffering etc. So you are just contradicting yourself by asserting two things are the same when according to the involved parties they have mutually-exclusive attributes

          You're just begging the question here and repeating the slogan. Buddhists say there's no self because they are consistent in how they apply their logic. That Shankara defines the Self in an inconsistent way doesn't mean that he is now absolved of critique, and that Advaita is not subsumed under Buddhism, without which it would have never existed.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Because everything that consistutes you and your understanding even of Advaita is annihilated. Saying that this is somehow a plus, when it's obvious so much is being lost, is moronic. If you like that, then fine, but just admit and be honest about what you're doing. You like annihilationism.
            what if you're just forgetting? you're more than your living memories. the awareness simply migrates. and that's something, not nothing. isn't it?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Because everything that consistutes you and your understanding even of Advaita is annihilated. Saying that this is somehow a plus, when it's obvious so much is being lost, is moronic. If you like that, then fine, but just admit and be honest about what you're doing. You like annihilationism.
            what if you're just forgetting? you're more than your living memories. the awareness simply migrates. and that's something, not nothing. isn't it?

            yeah I know le epic annihilationist isn't gonna respond to this one. Plato wins again

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            see

            >Shankara made incontrovertible concessions to Buddhism
            try to name one (1)
            > but essentially coped by using a fluffed up language (the Absolute, Being, Consciousness, Bliss etc) that is actually inconsistent with his premises
            No, it’s not. He explains how it’s perfectly consistent.

            [...]
            >No self is more internally consistent.
            No, it’s not, because it contradicts and cannot reasonably account for the unity and continuity of conscious experience.

            [...]
            >what happens to your immortal, unchanging awareness when you sleep
            It remains present while thoughts and memories subside, that’s why if someone strikes you when you are in dreamless sleep a sentient presence (you) who is already there and present will suddenly feel that touch when it happens as an intrusion upon its peaceful thoughtless presence.

            [...]
            >Because everything that consistutes you and your understanding even of Advaita is annihilated.
            Wrong, that’s a lie. According to Advaita what constitutes everyone’s real ‘you’ is present, RIGHT NOW, as your innermost awareness, this is the Atman. This Atman is not lost at death, so it’s a total falsehood or lie to say that according to Vedanta “everything that constitutes you is annihilated at death”. Imagine making this much fuss and spamming so many threads over an argument that at heart rests upon a lie, absolutely embarrassing.

            >You're just begging the question here and repeating the slogan.
            It’s not begging the question to say that two things are different because they have mutually-exclusive attributes, it’s actually basic logic.
            >Buddhists say there's no self because they are consistent in how they apply their logic.
            That’s not what their actual argument is (which isn’t sound anyway which is another discussion)
            >That Shankara defines the Self in an inconsistent way
            What is his definition of Atman and how do you believe it is inconsistent? Oh wait you have no idea why am I asking….

            >Plato wins again
            Plato would be disappointed at your dishonesty and at your overly sentimental attachment to your physical body

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I see now that your post was not written by the other guy who is whining incorrectly about annihilation; I thought at first he wrote your post which is why I mentioned being dishonest here

            see
            [...]

            >Plato wins again
            Plato would be disappointed at your dishonesty and at your overly sentimental attachment to your physical body

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Shankara made incontrovertible concessions to Buddhism
        try to name one (1)
        > but essentially coped by using a fluffed up language (the Absolute, Being, Consciousness, Bliss etc) that is actually inconsistent with his premises
        No, it’s not. He explains how it’s perfectly consistent.

        No self is more internally consistent. True self is a cop out.

        >No self is more internally consistent.
        No, it’s not, because it contradicts and cannot reasonably account for the unity and continuity of conscious experience.

        what happens to your immortal, unchanging awareness when you sleep

        >what happens to your immortal, unchanging awareness when you sleep
        It remains present while thoughts and memories subside, that’s why if someone strikes you when you are in dreamless sleep a sentient presence (you) who is already there and present will suddenly feel that touch when it happens as an intrusion upon its peaceful thoughtless presence.

        Because everything that consistutes you and your understanding even of Advaita is annihilated. Saying that this is somehow a plus, when it's obvious so much is being lost, is moronic. If you like that, then fine, but just admit and be honest about what you're doing. You like annihilationism.

        [...]
        >That's incorrect; since the Advaita Self is unchanging awareness that is unconditioned and free from delusion and suffering where most of Buddhism denies that we have an unchanging awareness, deny that awareness is a self, they deny that awareness is free from suffering etc. So you are just contradicting yourself by asserting two things are the same when according to the involved parties they have mutually-exclusive attributes

        You're just begging the question here and repeating the slogan. Buddhists say there's no self because they are consistent in how they apply their logic. That Shankara defines the Self in an inconsistent way doesn't mean that he is now absolved of critique, and that Advaita is not subsumed under Buddhism, without which it would have never existed.

        >Because everything that consistutes you and your understanding even of Advaita is annihilated.
        Wrong, that’s a lie. According to Advaita what constitutes everyone’s real ‘you’ is present, RIGHT NOW, as your innermost awareness, this is the Atman. This Atman is not lost at death, so it’s a total falsehood or lie to say that according to Vedanta “everything that constitutes you is annihilated at death”. Imagine making this much fuss and spamming so many threads over an argument that at heart rests upon a lie, absolutely embarrassing.

        >You're just begging the question here and repeating the slogan.
        It’s not begging the question to say that two things are different because they have mutually-exclusive attributes, it’s actually basic logic.
        >Buddhists say there's no self because they are consistent in how they apply their logic.
        That’s not what their actual argument is (which isn’t sound anyway which is another discussion)
        >That Shankara defines the Self in an inconsistent way
        What is his definition of Atman and how do you believe it is inconsistent? Oh wait you have no idea why am I asking….

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    to begin with there's no such thing as a self, only the continuum of aggregates (physical and mental),
    when you die there's a dissolution of those aggregates, that's it

    soul, heaven, hell, states of being are just symbols for actual realities, not something 'after death'

    also, the notion of a god 'creator', 'first cause', 'ultimate principle' is a complete absurd, everything is ruled by causes and conditions so there's no such thing as an 'uncaused' prima causa

    Mark 8:34: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

    read these two articles
    https://pt.br1lib.org/book/16356422/2ff10f
    https://pt.br1lib.org/book/16356403/f50a6c

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      heresy

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Genocide? No no no, that was a mere dissolution of aggregates.

        have you read about the life of St. Anthony the Great?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          no but I did read about the unity of the intellect crisis and the life of St. Thomas Aquinas

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Genocide? No no no, that was a mere dissolution of aggregates.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >there is no self
      >links to a AKC paper who accepts the Advaita Self

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Advaita Self is just the Buddhist no self. Time to accept reality.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          And vice-versa. No-self and true Self are different angles on the same thing.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No self is more internally consistent. True self is a cop out.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Thats manas, quite different from buddhi, and that in itself is quite different from atma,

      >No self Buddhism subsumes Advaita.
      how so?
      [...]
      That's incorrect; since the Advaita Self is unchanging awareness that is unconditioned and free from delusion and suffering where most of Buddhism denies that we have an unchanging awareness, deny that awareness is a self, they deny that awareness is free from suffering etc. So you are just contradicting yourself by asserting two things are the same when according to the involved parties they have mutually-exclusive attributes
      [...]
      I am not scared of anything, having my own immortal awareness be present blissfully forever is not an annihilation and no amount of cope can show otherwise

      >where most of Buddhism
      Yes Most of Buddhism.... Unchanging Awareness is the basis for some buddhism, and others too maybe just wont call it Unchanging because merely elaborating upon something in that way, implies a sort of specification, indicative of some distinct condition which further implies differentiation and a subject-object relation, in the same way Shankara will not absolutely reduce Brahman to satcitananda - these names are just like a phenomenalogical explanation of it in essence not to be thought of as limitative conditions as it is the Metaphysical Infinity, in that way Nothing is a phenomenalogical explanation, and is of course not a mere Nothingness - in the experience of Buddhists and so forth, this alone filters alot of people... - what i wrote about satcitananda is According to what I read in "Advaita a philosophical reconstruction by Elliot Deutsch"

      Youre Guénongay right? Well anyway, I used to think negatively of Buddhism etc. Too, aswell as "Pyrronhism" and "Skepticism" or whatever, but after establishing a confidence in the Self, i realised that Nagarjuna etc. And the schools i mentioned before are saying the same thing, and were just filtering thenon-initiated, because they were so absorbed into the Self, Buddhism etc. And Atheism is just a more radical apophatic advaita, which im sure filters many and attracts nihilists, on this i am pretty sure, Guenon even had a bad opinion of this sort of skepticism or pyrrohinism, maybe because these philosophies seem incomplete *without* experience,
      Anyway why be dishonest, Advaita is "Esoteric Atheism" to those who get filtered in a sense no point pretending otherwise.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        A *linguistic specification* more or less, this sort of denialism, is effective for dissolving constraints and leading maybe even without some gradual process to the realisation of the self,
        By the passage from Existence to Being to Non-Being to Pure Being, in the order of being encompassed, anyway, not just advaita is effective or expedient to lead to this.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          The denialism is like the negation of the five koshas,
          The more i read about this sort of stuff, all it just seems to be is like
          A big cosmic historical conflict between affirmers and deniers, which all break off from the tree of the affirmer-deniers which is the "primordial tradition" even if that is simplistic there is not much more to it, everything from then on, like "tantra" "bhakti" etc. Etc.
          Is just people harnessing the human experience, to enter one side of the conflict or to become the entire conflict itself and "transcend,"
          The whole "muh transmit the spiritual influence" etc. That guenonian morons push seems to be a sort od superstitious misinterpretation, symbolism is simple, its not magical, most of the most esoteric eastern schools, are just using symbols like veganas and penises to express this timeless mystery, i dont get the cultish devotion to guenon or evola, that is seen on Oyish tradlarpers are all talk, about moving to some place to learn about a tradition etc. Kek

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Yes I am…. le Guenongay. I agree with most of the things you say and was aware of them, I just don’t bother typing lengthy addendums reminding everyone of the exceptions since I want to explain why what the other poster says is wrong in limited post-space. Also, plenty of people have disagreed that Nagarjuna implicitly accept non-dualism or whatever and some academics accuse the Tibetans or projecting ideas on him and Chandrakirti etc that they dont have. And at least one late-medieval Indian Buddhist writer attacked Chandrakirti as being an annihilationist. Most of the prominent partisans of pyrronhism, skepticism, prasangika-madhyamika etc in the academic world in the west and in the amateur online blogging world in the west take different interpretations of them than you do AFAIK and you can find quotes in their writings to this effect, but I’m not saying that your interpretation isn’t a valid one, and some types of Tibetan Buddhism are like that. I can understand taking that approach to them but Im not super confident that was their actual intention. I would say the philosophical doctrines expounded by Tsongkhapa as official Gelug doctrine are contrary to it even if Gelugs in their practices may still read texts like Tantras or hear some orally transmitted teaching which at least strongly implies the opposite.
        >not just advaita is effective or expedient to lead to this.
        I have never said otherwise, hence the moniker. However there are some attempted expositions of truth that are executed badly and that contain various errors with regard to metaphysics, questions of epistemology, etc. Some are just based on an incorrect analysis of epistemic experience and/or use inconsistent logic while other points go deeper. Like Krishna says in the Gita though ‘no effort ever goes to waste’, even following a religion or a worldview that completely wrong metaphysically can still advance you higher up the transmigration/karma totem pole and get you closer to final liberation/enlightenment in the long span of things if the actual practices it makes you do and the effects this has on your behavior-patterns and urges etc is good enough.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Also guenongay i was curious about your opinion on kundalini yoga - chakras and so on, after reading Devikālottara, i guess its only a distraction?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >after reading Devikālottara
            Interesting, I hadn't heard about that one before thanks for the namedrop it looks good. I have read some of the other Tamil Advaita works like Advaita-Bodha-Deepika (itself a Tamil translation of lost Sanskrit original) and Kaivalya-Navaneeta but never saw that one

            > i guess its only a distraction?
            Shankara *would* consider that to be a distraction for a monk on the direct path of knowledge of jnana-yoga, since Advaita traditionally doesn’t rely on Kundalini-yoga or any other adjunct for instruction in the realization of the Self and the aspirants related realization of It. However, they could conceivably view it as being a part of the layperson’s spiritual and meditative practices that are appropriate for that layperson since they don’t have the proper prerequisites to follow and remain in jnana-yoga like monks do in part since they have all these ties and obligations and sources of routine comfort that are distractions. Additionally, it could be seen as a valid part of the pre-monk purification regime that one traditionally goes through first in order to have a trained and clear enough intellect to be able to grasp the Self; just like things like yogic postures, breathing exercises, Vedic rituals and the entirety of Mimansa are a part of this and play the same role as well as things you do before you are qualified and ready for jnana-yoga.

            For traditional Advaita a layperson basically won’t reach full enlightenment doing this stuff like kundalini and if they did then they wouldn’t remain a layperson for much longer after that happened but would eventually drift into monkhood once their temporary special exception reason for not doing so immediately was exhausted; so with that being said their attitude to laypeople is just “do whatever meditations/yogas/bhakti work best for you and ideally you’ll get a more auspicious rebirth, brahmaloka entry or grow pure and thereby want to become a monk etc”, all of which make moksha a closer and more easily available goal.

            Now, the Marathi poet-saint Dyaneshwar in his Bhagavad-Gita commentary called ‘Bhavartha-Deepika’ fits kundalini into his scheme of Advaita realization in an interesting way due to his tantric/shaivite Nath influence, and that’s worth checking out as an interesting synthesis of Advaita and Tantrism/Shaivism but its not the model followed by traditional Advaita. I think this link below is the best and most beautiful translation of Dyaneshwar’s magnum opus

            https://ia800303.us.archive.org/27/items/Sri.Jnandevas.Bhvartha.Dipika-Jnaneswari/Sri.Jnandevas.Bhvartha.Dipika-Jnaneswari_text.pdf

            Nisargadatta Maharaja was not actually initiated in traditional Advaita despite being known popularly as an Advaitin but he was initiated both in Dyaneshwar’s tradition (which has Shaivist roots but outwardly Vaishnavite iconography) and was also initiated into the Shaivist school of Veerashaivism.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Nevermind I see it says “translated into Tamil” and its not an original Tamil text

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Bhavartha-Deepika
            Ill check it out
            >Nisargadatta Maharaja
            I like him Siddharameshwar, and Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadstta's "I am" stuff is alright, advaita-bodha deepika is good, i liked how it defined yoga, and self-inquiry etc.
            Also have you looked at Hatha Yoga, in Yoga Taravali by Shankara he talks about yoga, and elevates "meditiation on the anahata sound" so Nada Yoga, and talks about various breathing methods like kevala-kumbhaka, all of course demanding "one-pointedness," in general though there is a decent book on kundalini yoga, sort of terse not an authentic text but like a modern manual called "laya yoga" which seems decent, hatha yoga though seems pretty good as a past time, also have you read the Ribhu Gita, i read various parts of it, and was quite impressed, it seems like a lesser known text,
            >Advaita traditionally doesn’t rely on Kundalini-yoga or any other adjunct for instruction in the realization of the Self
            Yes it is about the negation of the koshas, pranas, etc. Of course, so holding to the idea of chakras and so forth even if it has some significance with the spine being a sort of world axis, yggdrasil, i remember reading stuff in guenon about "luz" too which would correspond to the muladhara etc. Which seemed strange, the seed syllables etc. Or deities thar are installed into various parts of the body are all there to increase the effectivity of meditiation, and to accelerate the attainment of various siddhis or realisations, its hard to understand the chakra stuff as it seems to involve some sort of physical localisation even if you extend this to some sort of wide reaching macrocosmic perspective, really once this "one-pointedness" is fully established the "visualizations" etc. One may perform and mantras become redundant, in advaita bodha deepika, it explains "yoga" as the just a sort of turning of the one-pointed mind, to the infinite bliss self, and you just rest in that that seems most optimum, the fourfold sadhana which is introduced - the discrimination, dispassion, etc. Is good too, meditating upon the forms of deities etc. Even the names is surpasses eventually as the view is effortless,

            I wanted to ask what you have come to think about the whole guenonian idea of a "transmission of a spiritual influence" and these sorts of things, i have come to view it as some sort of superstition, what could it possibly mean? Of course i understand the necrssity of obescience or devotion to the guru - which is really the Self, but the whole "transmission of a spiritual influence of a suprahuman order" or whatever still seems like a strange formulation.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I have not explored Hatha Yoga texts in depth yet (I will eventually though and I own Haraharananda's Yoga-Sutra commentary) but I have firsthand experience doing the postures in lessons before, as far as I can tell typical Yoga-philosophy like Patanjali is largely based on the Sankhya discrimination of one's purusa from prakriti but Yoga adds an Isvara, and the final product is philosophically like a dualist-pluralist-realist type of Vedanta while in practice they are talking about finding the untainted awareness of the Self just like non-dualists are. I have seen some people in the academic literature say that there are subtle problems in the Yoga account of how the Purusa and the Buddhi unite to produce our experience that Advaita answers better in their respective model but I have not fully looked into all the details yet. I have also only read portions of the Ribhu Gita but I also really enjoyed it too and appreciated its fairly unique style of diction, I think I'll soon be ordering a physical copy of Nome's translation of it since his is unabridged.

            As far as the 'transmission of spiritual influence' idea my own personal opinion is that it has to do with someone who is already highly realized being able to intuitively read someone (their disciple) and communicate something about their own realization to them that is designed to either detonate the disciple's normal mode of thinking about things and directly lead them to realization by directly pointing out X or which creates a crack in the dam of their normal mode of ignorant being that then shatters it later; that this is something which possibly involves the teacher seeing how the disciple holds themselves and speaks which then factors into how exactly the teacher speaks about their teachings. And then that someone who is successfully introduced to a state of enlightened understanding/awareness and who really "gets it" could then get the ability to introduce it to others.

            This process may even work on a partially subconscious level like pheromonal signaling or something, they say most communication is actually non-verbal. I don't hugely care if its supernatural or involves the intervention of the Supramundane or if its reducible to some mechanistic explanation at the end of the day but there are certainly ways of rationalizing it as being some innate ability the mind has which requires the teacher to be present with and read the other person. Even if it's more like a natural ability of the mind its still conceivable that you could only acquire it yourself after someone who has it transits it to you like learning to whistle or lucid dream from someone. I think you can definitely have spontaneous 'shaktipat' type realizations simply from closely reading through and focusing on the import of non-dual texts especially stuff that is fairly exhaustive like Shankara's commentaries; but that likely lacks the same effectiveness as having someone who really knows instruct you in it

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Also, if there is some mechanistic explanation for the transmission of spiritual influences involving things like a combination of pheromones, the subconscious brain reading of body behavior and voice intonation etc; but these mechanistic explanations are only true because of maya generating them and making them so, then there is really no significant practical difference between that and it directly being a supernatural or supramundane influence being transmitted, because the end result is the same.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, it's not at all what people think when they imagine what Traditionalism is. Guenon is just esoteric atheism.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah. They’re all crypt-Hindus or crypto-Buddhists. Most them end up as Muslims simply because Sufis tolerate these things and Muslims don’t really care as long as you follow sharia publicly and nominally endorse Islam. These are the same Christian heresies that started popping up around the 17th century and resulted in the Enlightenment on one hand, and occultic currents like Theosophy on the other.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    proof? maybe the soul migrates.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      there's no such thing as a soul, only the aggregates (physical, feelings, ideas, dispositions, and consciousness)

      Actually, 'soul' is a symbol whose meaning no one seems to understand
      the SOUL is equivalent to the hinduist SELF (atman), so it's not 'your' soul inside 'your' body, this kind of soul is the one the Jesus said to deny/kill it

      but as I pointed out here

      [...]

      , ultimately there's no such a thing

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >there's no such thing as a soul, only the aggregates (physical, feelings, ideas, dispositions, and consciousness)
        why do you keep asserting something? I want you to argue it. that's why I keep asking for proof. repeating yourself isn't proof.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          where is your so-called 'soul'?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I’m living it. Just like you’re living yours

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            meaningless words

            i only see feelings, memories, thoughts, physical sensations, all passing by in a rapid way, appearing and disappearing

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You see seeing, but can you see see?

            Because the challenge never gets addressed. If you point out to Buddhists and Hindus that they can’t give an account for what they know, they just end up talking in circles about what they know, not realizing they’re failing to justify how they know it. It’s an endless circle you can’t get them to see but they’re very convinced of themselves.

            Stop seeing see and seeing seeing and see see, otherwise NGMI

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >i only see feelings, memories, thoughts, physical sensations, all passing by in a rapid way, appearing and disappearing
            what binds them together into one qualitative experience? what ensures the continuity of experience? what allows mind to interact with matter?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            there's only the experiences due to causes and conditions, any type of meaning, bindind or continuity is an abstraction, a fabrication, just life the self

            i recommend you to read some introductory Abhidharma or Yogacara(vijnanavada) text

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What makes abstractions “fabrications”? Who says they’re not real? Math is an abstraction, yet it is real.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What makes abstractions “fabrications”? Who says they’re not real? Math is an abstraction, yet it is real.

            lol the Buddhist runs in terror of the mere mention of math

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    It is not just faith for a Christian. That’s what you morons just blatantly ignore. Christians give an account for how truth is possible and why faith is justified. Hindus do not.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Hindus do not.
      Incorrect, they do that in just about every commentary on the Brahma-sutras, i.e. Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Nimbarka, Srikantha etc have all done so.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        No, they think they do but they don’t. They can’t give a coherent account for how anything is known at all.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          I call bullshit because you certainly don’t know the reason why each of them claim their theology and teachings are justified, that’s like 6 different Hindu philosophers and you’ve studied none of them. But, out of curiosity, why do you think their claims are unjustified and why do you think Christianity claims are justified? How does saying God is trinitarian or human confer some special privilege that the Upanishads do not? Saying ‘but muh illusion’ is not even a valid argument here because plenty of Hindu schools who comment on that text don’t accept that maya teaching and they think creation and the body etc is totally real.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            faith and attachment

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            They all posit an impersonal absolute, do they not?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >They all posit an impersonal absolute, do they not?
            No, aside from Shankara, Bhaskara and possibly Srikantha most of them like Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Nilakantha, Baladeva etc don’t do so. Madhva posits a personal Absolute who is totally separate from creation and Ramanuja and the other Vaishnavite commentators from other schools posit some kind of personalistic Absolute who thinks and loves etc and gives grace and who exists in some respective metaphysical variation that combines identity and difference, Ramanuja basically says Brahman-Vishnu has his own personal God-consciousness in the equivalent of his center with his physical body forming the rest of the universe and which is made of insentient cosmos and sentient living souls (as his toes and organs etc). For Ramanuja there is no ‘beyond the universe’ and no real creation but the eternal and personal Brahman-Vishnu arranged the universe out of the eternally pre-existent parts of his body, almost like Aristotle except Aristotle’s “self-thinking thought” is much more impersonal than Ramanuja’s Absolute.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            If it's totally separate from creation, how is it personal?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >If it's totally separate from creation, how is it personal?
            From what I know in Madhva’s Dvaita the Brahman-Vishnu is personal even though separate from creation because his personal qualities are eternally uncreated and inherent in him and those qualities determine how he governs and dispenses grace etc to the world under his control and in the Brahmaloka (heaven) people can get closer to him.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            But that's just a claim. Either it's personal or it's not, and if it's not there's no way you can claim anything particular about it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >But that's just a claim.
            never said otherwise, but isnt christian teachings also just claims?
            >Either it's personal or it's not
            separate from creation doesnt mean unloving or without opinions and joy etc, how is Madhva’s Brahman not personal?

            https://iep.utm.edu/madhva/

            >and if it's not there's no way you can claim anything particular about it
            You can if you know it directly as your own awareness, which lacks personal qualities and is ‘impersonal’ (since its whats aware of them)

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            They are claims, but the difference is they can give a coherent account of how those claims are known and that is the central point.

            Loving or unloving has nothing to do with it. How could you say anything about an absolute which you have no relationship to? By definition, you have no relationship and it would be inconceivable, in every respect, including its existence or anything you could ever say about it at all.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      of course its faith, buddhists have destroyed all arguments in favor of an 'eternal soul', faith, unchanging being, personal god, etc

      but you can't confuse all this doctrinal talk with the actual practice
      i actually recognize the saints and their methods, not only of christianity but of all major religions

      but under an analysis and rigorous exam of the DOCTRINES no one can beat the buddhists, just study a little bit of abhidharma to see it

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        No, you’re wrong. Faith is essential but it is not merely justification by faith. You can assert that all you want but that won’t make it true.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Christianity also believes in the total unity with God in heaven, does that sound like atheism to you?
    Aristotle also believed that the soul dies with the body, yet he clearly believed in God as an unmoved mover
    This is just an example of a anon forcing his own worldview through other authors that dont believe the same shit

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Aristotle also believed that the soul dies with the body, yet he clearly believed in God as an unmoved mover
      Yes, but he believed god was *only* an unmoved mover. There's no providential deity for Aristotle.

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    you guys are both insufferable. all you do is restate your positions and then attack the character of your interlocutor. every single thread, it’s the same gamut. you never interrogate the philosophical basis of each other’s positions or at least admit (what I think is the case at least—Kant would agree) that the self is a fundamentally unsolvable question. do me a favor, and be a little bit less boring. go for the dialectical jugular this time

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Because the challenge never gets addressed. If you point out to Buddhists and Hindus that they can’t give an account for what they know, they just end up talking in circles about what they know, not realizing they’re failing to justify how they know it. It’s an endless circle you can’t get them to see but they’re very convinced of themselves.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        it's whatever, I think I understand Buddhist and Advaita Vedantist thought enough now to interrogate them both. it's the classic debate between Plato and Hume.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        How do Christians not do the same thing?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Knowledgeable Christians know the Trinity doctrine as a means for justifying how Truth revealed to us is possible at all, and it's perfectly coherent.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Knowledgeable Christians know the Trinity doctrine as a means for justifying how Truth revealed to us is possible at all, and it's perfectly coherent.
            So, since you can’t explain how that works are you not knowledgeable?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not sure why you think I can't explain why that works, but what I was referring to was the fact that many Christians are confused about this topic today. That's not a refutation of the principle though.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >you never interrogate the philosophical basis of each other’s positions
      The Advaitins can and do state in their classical texts, in books and in threads why they consider it reasonable and consistent to consider their own innermost awareness as their own self or true identity etc according to what the basic meanings of these terms are, it’s just that some of the different types of Buddhists here disagree about whether that reasoning is correct or whether there is such a awareness/luminosity.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >it seems you're all confusing the vedantic Self (atman) with the aggregates
    No, I’m talking about the Vedantic Atman. The idea of consciousness that Vedantists associate with Atman isn’t the same as what Buddhists understand consciousness is, so even though the Hindu says ‘consciousness’ he isn’t just talking about what the Buddhist understands but they are two separate things

    >a hindu has to accept that just like a christian accepts the bible. It's just faith
    In the writings of Vedanta philosophers are many arguments for why we should accept Atman that are based on both logic and experience; some of these refute Buddhism, Jainism, and non-Vedanta Hindu schools like Nyaya etc.

    >when you carefully examine experience there's no eternal substance, unlimited being, permanent awereness, just the flux
    What is being looked for in your argument?
    The Self (Atman) of awareness, of the knowing presence to whom everything is meaningful in relation towards.

    Can awareness directly observe itself as its own object while remaining the knower?
    No, the idea is illogical. Witnessing-awareness is extremely subtle and simple and does’t have visible parts that we can detect and so it makes no sense to speak of it splitting itself into observer and observer because it has no separate parts that can remain separate while performing these two halves.

    If the ostensible self of innermost permanent awareness that Vedantists accept cannot be detected through direct empirical observation like a tree then what is the point of making a big fuss about the fact that one cannot observe it as an object?
    It becomes a non-sequitur logical fallacy if you is trying to present that as a concrete refutation of an eternal Atman of witnessing awareness (or at least for the Advaita version) or as empirical confirmation of anatta because Advaitins say its not empirically observable anyway so that’s really in accordance with their position. Advaitins say the Self does have reflexive knowledge of itself as pure sentience but that is unchanging and doesn’t involve parts or a subject-object/observer-observed split, so that would fail to provide epistemic confirmation of it changing anyway.

    The continuity and unchanging nature of awareness is revealed by the experiential fact of how it pervades all experiences equally alike as effortlessly lucid presence, in all experiences awareness is just simply present as the knower in the same way, we cant find any change in this because it’s a constant fact of experience. Even talking about ‘observing flux’ presupposes non-flux since in order for it to observe change an awareness has to be continuously present for some portion of the duration of time in which the change occurs or it would see a motionless snapshot with no change. Does that prove awareness last eternally beyond the body? No, but that attests to its continuity and the lack of evidence for its interruption, which jives with it being actually eternal.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >The whole "history" of all philosophy, has just been a running debate about the meaning of numbers
    Until it was concluded when that was solved by Rene Guenon’s (pbuh) ‘The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus’
    >Who knows really
    see above

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      What did he say in a nutshell?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >What did he say in a nutshell?
        Among other things that ‘0’ is not a number, that the ‘0’ that modern math uses is not a pure nothingness, that there are not multiple infinites, that the true infinite is above numerical quantity, that modern math confuses the infinite with the indefinitely-increasing and indefinitely-decreasing and that other confusions stem from this. It’s a short book about 120 pages.

        https://ia801305.us.archive.org/30/items/reneguenon/1946%20-%20The%20Metaphysical%20Principles%20of%20the%20Infinitesimal%20Calculus.pdf

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          What are the implications of this? Are there any modern mathematicians who also share similar beliefs? Even though I'm a layman, I'm pretty sure there's a significant debate about the nature of infinity.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >What are the implications of this?
            He says in the book, it ties into his discussion of space and metaphysics in his other books especially in ‘The Symbolism of the Cross’ and ‘Multiple States of the Being’, I would want to reread it more closer before trying to fully state the span of its implications since math is not my speciality, I found it very interesting though.
            >Are there any modern mathematicians who also share similar beliefs?
            Yes, the physicist and mathematician Wolfgang Smith, a modern Catholic member of Guenon’s ‘Traditionalist School’ who taught math at UCLA and MIT agrees with what Guenon says about math. Smith has multiple books on physics and math that go even deeper into btfoing hylic modern pencil-pushers from a Trad metaphysics perspective but Guenon’s math book is a good place to start.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          What are the implications of this? Are there any modern mathematicians who also share similar beliefs? Even though I'm a layman, I'm pretty sure there's a significant debate about the nature of infinity.

          the best part of the book is when he uses the Integral sum operation as a symbol for the metaphysical realization, surpassing the indefinite

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            pretty sure this doesn't debunk the Zeno paradox

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Is the "solar plexus clown glider" photo just this photo of Evola with the eyes and mouth upside down? What did they mean by this?

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    How are there such fricking stupid posts on lit? This has to be a troony trolling

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      tell me more anon, what exactly about the post bothered you? seems like normal fare

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        i guess if you're pretty stupid and don't actually read

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          I meant that it was just normal stupidity. looks even contrived. how did it even bother you that much?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            i guess the quality of lit has gone down quite a bit over the past year or two. When I discovered Evola and Guenon I came to lit and was pleasantly surprised to see that other people were also into them, and there were good discussions where you would learn new things or get good recs. Now I come here and every Guenon/Evola thread on the catalog is moron-tier, clearly the person has never read the books or they are just very stupid and only interested in twitter-style takedowns, I don't know why adhd fricks like that would be on a lit board. Otherwise it's trolling, perhaps for subversive purposes, to disrupt a growing online movement?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Otherwise it's trolling, perhaps for subversive purposes, to disrupt a growing online movement?
            kek, anon. you're way too paranoid. I'm the OP, and I wrote it intentionally obnoxiously so I'd attract some experts to BTFO that line of thinking. I was concerned that Evola and Guenon were just going to be more esoteric atheists like the Straussian crew. there was some half decent discussion, so if anything I strengthened it. I'm sympathetic to Evola anyway. I'm halfway through Ride the Tiger after finishing a degree in philosophy, and I'm floored by how erudite he is. pleasant surprise.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            like anon, this was my thought process
            >hmmm, this is a hot take, but I can't refute it
            >I need an answer NOW
            >oh wait, I'll try Oyish and see if they'll bite
            >I'll make sure to use the most over-the-top profile of Evola, the one that really leans hard into him being a spooky occultist
            >add some moronic contrived zoomer speak and VOILA, a bait thread
            if you got baited by that then you're operating too much by habit because I have to admit that that was a really lazy bait on my end

            F U dick

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Otherwise it's trolling, perhaps for subversive purposes, to disrupt a growing online movement?
            kek, anon. you're way too paranoid. I'm the OP, and I wrote it intentionally obnoxiously so I'd attract some experts to BTFO that line of thinking. I was concerned that Evola and Guenon were just going to be more esoteric atheists like the Straussian crew. there was some half decent discussion, so if anything I strengthened it. I'm sympathetic to Evola anyway. I'm halfway through Ride the Tiger after finishing a degree in philosophy, and I'm floored by how erudite he is. pleasant surprise.

            like anon, this was my thought process
            >hmmm, this is a hot take, but I can't refute it
            >I need an answer NOW
            >oh wait, I'll try Oyish and see if they'll bite
            >I'll make sure to use the most over-the-top profile of Evola, the one that really leans hard into him being a spooky occultist
            >add some moronic contrived zoomer speak and VOILA, a bait thread
            if you got baited by that then you're operating too much by habit because I have to admit that that was a really lazy bait on my end

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Guenon and Evola believe in the complete annihilation of the Self after death.
    No they don't
    > It's basically esoteric atheism.
    Serious question: are you moronic?
    >I'm not saying that there isn't value in their work, but their mode of thought kind of defeats it's own purpose in that it's approach to death is satisfactory for most that are interested in spirituality
    You don't even understand one of the most basic esoteric concepts, don't bother with spirituality or esotericism, go read marx and simp for Black folk or something.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Learn what they mean by the self.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Who the frick are Guenon and evola?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Like Delude and Gertrude.

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >now I'm not reading Ride the Tiger or Reign of Quantity.
    You never intended to.
    >it was all just a fancy LARP
    How ironic coming from you.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *